HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP — As a May 8 referendum approaches that will decide the fate of a $4.1 million sewer project, a divided township committee is arguing over how the project will be described to voters on the ballot.

At issue is how far the “interpretive statement” should go in describing what the money will be used for, beyond the fact that it will pay for the acquisition of sewer treatment capacity from the Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority.

The majority of the committee wants the public to know that it will provide sewer service to homes and businesses along Route 31 that have failing septic systems and that it would also provide service to 180 affordable housing units the township is required to build under its fair housing plan.

But Vanessa Sandom and Allen Cannon, the two members against spending the money, say there is a huge debate over whether the township actually needs to purchase the capacity. They accused the majority of trying to use the referendum language to sway voters to ratify the $4.1 million bond.

“I think the interpretive statement needs to be short, self-explanatory and present the facts in an unbiased fashion,” Sandom said. “We should tell voters how much is being spent and for what. We shouldn’t be telling them why we’re purchasing the sewer capacity but how we’re paying for it.”

Other committee members say simply telling the voters that the money will be spent on sewer capacity without any additional details would be a disservice to residents. Voters must know why the committee voted in November to spend the $4.1 million in the first place, they said.

Mayor Michael Markulec says voters need to know that when the committee voted to purchase the capacity from ELSA, it did so in large part to address an affordable housing need.

To not buy the capacity would put the 180-unit affordable housing project in limbo and, in turn, throw the town’s affordable housing plan out of compliance with state requirements, he said. That, in turn, would leave the town vulnerable to a “builder’s remedy” wherein a developer would step in and build the affordable housing along with a lot of other unwanted development, he said.

“Voters need to know the facts to make an informed decision,” Markulec said.
But Sandom, the lone no vote last November, argued that not purchasing the capacity would in no way jeopardize the town’s affordable housing plan. She called the argument a scare tactic. Cannon, who was sworn in as a committee member in January, shares Sandom’s position on the matter.

The decision to purchase the capacity capped more than a year of public meetings on the sewer project that were attended mainly by residents living in the area. The cost of the capacity — and subsequent sewer hookups — was to be borne by the property owners through special assessments. But most residents balked at the $40,000 price tag per hookup and objected to the proposed assessments.

The committee eventually approved a $4.1 million bond ordinance that called for the money to be repaid by all the taxpayers but allowed for the town to seek reimbursement from users through special assessments.

The township committee has said its intent is to assess the users of the system — the businesses and residents — for the lion’s share of the bond with the entire the township paying only for the capacity used by the affordable housing.

But a group of residents calling itself Citizens for Tax Choice objected to the bond ordinance, arguing that all the taxpayers are legally on the hook for the money. They also argued that the town will try to mitigate its costs by selling excess sewer capacity to developers, thus opening the southern tier to a flood of development.

The group circulated petitions to overturn the November vote and put the question to a public referendum.

Now leaders of the group drive are adding their voices to the debate over the ballot language. They too, want an interpretative statement devoid of the committee’s reasons for purchasing the capacity.

“The public does not need your position. The public needs a clear and fair position,” said Harvey Lester, co-chair of Citizens for Tax Choice.